Yes. Let me try to put it in some context.
If we go back again to our experiences in the Balkans in the 1990s, and to some extent even in early 2000s, to be very blunt, we failed. We failed our soldiers, sailors, and airmen and air women--our soldiers more than anybody else, because they took the greatest amount of casualties. We had been away from real combat, real action, for so long that the collected memory had failed us and we had not put attention to those things as we should. We learned that lesson.
The support system that the Canadian Forces has in place today for soldiers who are injured, including psychological casualties, and for families of soldiers who are injured or have died, is, in my personal view, second to none. That isn't to say there won't be failures. I'm not suggesting it's perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it is a very, very carefully thought-out process. It goes into action automatically if anybody is hurt. Based on my experience and everybody I've talked to who has been involved with it, they are very pleased with it.
One of the toughest areas, by far, is the PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder. It's tough not because of a lack of will to deal with it but the reality that everybody--nobody more so than a person in uniform--is very proud about what they do and how they feel about it, and no matter how much education and preparation we give people, they can't help but believe that if they have a psychological casualty, somehow it's a failing on their part and they don't want to bring it forward. My friend Romeo Dallaire has said publicly more than once that he'd have been a lot better off if he'd lost a leg. That's exactly the sentiment, and many feel the same way.
So what I'm saying is that the limitation of the system in that regard is the willingness of people, at some level, to come forward and say, “I have a problem.”